But in the hours before media day, let’s squeeze in the latest on the Pac-12 TV Network:

*** We’re at least a week away from an announcement on the structure and partnership — and more likely several weeks.

Tempting at it may be to temporarily knock the Oregon mess to the back burner, the chances of the conference going public with the network details at any of its three media events this week (L.A., New York City and Bristol) are slim.

*** Fox is definitely in play as a potential partner despite comments last week from a spokesman that the company is “not in any discussions with the conference about a Pac-12 Network.”

*** The Pac-12 is considering at least three competing proposals, including traditional partnerships (with a cable or satellite operator) and setting a new course by teamming with Apple or Google.

*** Before anyone panics at that thought: I’ve been told by multiple sources that the league won’t create a model in which football and basketball games are exclusively on the internet, or on web TV.

Scott is well aware that cable/satellite systems are the best platforms for the vast majority of fans.

But the paths are not mutually exclusive: Google and Apple are pursuing what’s called multi-platform distribution models which will allow them to be viewed through cable/sat systems.

* As noted last week, I’m trying to provide relevant information and reasonable guesses as to which direction the conference may go … but they are only guesses.

The conference is trying to find the best network structure for the present and the future, which isn’t easy given the speed of technological change and the disparate audience.

What’s best for a 23-year-old UCLA grad who only watches sports on his/her tablet isn’t necessarily what’s best for a 63-year old USC grad who only watches sports on his/her TV.

Jon Wilner

Post navigation

14 is different than 12. 14 would mean 6 division games and three crossovers. If you, admitted OU and Okie Lite, put them in the South and moved USC to the north and protected UCLA’s crossovers with the other California schools then they’re schedule would be locked; every year they would play USC, Cal, Stanford, Zona, ASU, CU, Utah, OU and Okie Lite, and they would never play UDub, UO, OSU or WSU every again unless it was in the CCG. That is unacceptable. It wouldn’t matter which California school you subbed in for UCLA in the South, the situation be the same.

alchemist

Superdeluxe:

I want Texas, whoever, whoever and whoever. It doesn’t work any other way.

Note: “whoever” does NOT include any team in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Utah, Colorado or Boise State.

alchemist

ccrider:

Split the Oklahoma schools and you would create a travel nightmare for both and have divisions that don’t make sense for the more casual fan.

Move Utah to the north (or CU or anyone else) then you’re going to create a VERY south-heavy conference, and rotation with the protected crossovers in California gets ugly. Not as bad as in my response to Duckhead, but it’s still not good. After their six divisional games and two protected in-state crossovers it would leave the California schools with one game left for the other five non-CA teams in the opposite division. A kid at Oregon could go his entire four-year career without ever playing USC unless the two met in the CCG.

Pac12Guru

Alchemist, the B1G already has the STL market within its footprint by having Illinois in the conference. Nebraska holds it weight because you are right they are a national name, but where they really hold their weight is the fact they make a conference championship possible. Kudos to the B1G for going for tradition as opposed to a major metropolitan area, but it never matter who they picked, that conference championship game was always going to pay for itself. When the B1G further expands it’ll 100% be about extending their reach metropolitan area-wise. The OK schools are a nonstarter by themselves guys. Further expansion isn’t worth it unless Texas is involved, it’s simple math at this point.

Superdeluxe

Alchemist: I agree, No Texas and expansion really does not work.

alchemist

Pac12Guru:

The fact their expansion allowed them to have a CCG isn’t really relevant to the point I’m making. Let’s just say the Big Ten Championship game was worth “X” dollars.

I don’t know how true it is that they already had St. Louis thanks to Illinois but for the sake of argument I’ll just assume that statement is accurate and MU brought them nothing they didn’t already have there. Even if we start there, Mizzou would have added the Kansas City market as well. Heck, Mizzou would have added the Springfield, MO market and that is larger than Omaha. So they were going to get their “X” CCG dollars whether it was NU or MU, Missouri, even if you subtract their largest market in St. Louis, still brought two other media markets with them that are larger than Nebraska’s biggest one, yet Nebraska got the invitation. It is possible for profile to trump TV market. I think it’s very rare, but it can happen.

ccrider55

While I agree that at the current time UT is the biggest get in a possible expansion I strongly disagree that OU and another (OkSU) would not be worth it. there are a number of reasons that obviously are not local market related.
1: OU’s national brand is primary.
2: Sure, getting to twelve made a CCG possible but that isn’t what makes it profitable. How much is a MAC or MWC CCG game going to go for (assuming they were already at 12)? Now assume they added OU….
3: Add the Okla schools and you add 17 conference FB games and 6 non-conference. Ok/Neb ? Red River Shootout?
4: Baseball anyone? Basketball? Gymnastics (OU one of about 16 schools that still field a men’s team) Wrestling (over 30 national team titles between the two)? Not only excelence but far better inventory for a network than some HS filler (recruiting cheating) or 3000 hours of coaches shows re-runs.
5: The money they were to make in the Big12ish under old contract is not going to evaporate. In fact in a better and larger conference it can be leveraged more.

All of these apply to UT also, plus the huge “local” market of Texas. Simply lacking that market does not eliminate the other benifits. Plus, maybe, perhaps the potential loss of these (along with aTm) creates the environment that UT does not “instigate” but can move out of necessity. Am I holding my breath? No, but I see no unresolvable downside to expanding by 2 (for a time) especially when one is a king.